The list of people Nick Sandmann's lawyer is suing

[Ray From Cleveland]

Since when does the First Amendment make it legal to libel someone?

You mean like saying Ted Cruz's dad helped kill Kennedy?

You mean like spending years falsely claiming the President is not qualified to be President because he was born in Kenya?


Like that?

More like when they report the President said all white supremacists are good people.

When you lie about what was reported, why can't the media sue YOU for slander and libel. Or you twist what was reported into something completely different, and then say "Well that's what they meant".

Not one media outlet claimed that was what Trump said. What Trump said was that in Charlottesville, there were "good people on both sides".

Yes, that's exactly what he said, but much of the MSM didn't report it that way. Need links, I'll be happy to find them for ya.

 

[Coyote]

Since when does the First Amendment make it legal to libel someone?

You mean like saying Ted Cruz's dad helped kill Kennedy?

You mean like spending years falsely claiming the President is not qualified to be President because he was born in Kenya?


Like that?

More like when they report the President said all white supremacists are good people.

When you lie about what was reported, why can't the media sue YOU for slander and libel. Or you twist what was reported into something completely different, and then say "Well that's what they meant".

Not one media outlet claimed that was what Trump said. What Trump said was that in Charlottesville, there were "good people on both sides".

Yes, that's exactly what he said, but much of the MSM didn't report it that way. Need links, I'll be happy to find them for ya.

Provide them.

 

[Coyote]

I see two huge problems here, and I don’t lay all at the feet of the media but at feet of our society that drives and consumes and spreads uncritically the fodder generated by the thousands of outlets that call themselves media and journalists and talking heads.

Sandmann. A 16 yr old kid attending an event. He may or may not have behaved rudely, depends on your point of video view, but it doesn’t matter. What he may or may not have done is hardly newsworthy. He is a typical teen, maybe a little bored, doing nothing wrong. Teen kid being a teen kid. Not news by any means. But some one takes a video, opinionated to their particular slant, and makes a nonevent into something of a crisis for him and his family who had no clue he had even done something wrong. Death threats? Media shredding of a teens charecter and motivation, and worse doubling down on it when debate issues? Unreal!

And if you think Hogg is any different shame on you. He is another kid, who survived a horrendous experience no kid should have, and chose to not just let it be swept under the rug. Whether you agree with his view point or not, shouldn’t matter. He was accused of being a crisis actor, of not even having been there, his personal life was intruded on when Laura Ingraham made fun of him on her show, his family received death threats.

These are the ADULTS behaving in this shameful manner towards KIDS! ADULTS! WTF is wrong with them? And then you (a general sweeping “you”) say itis ok to attack some kids but not others? No! This is not cool. We have lost something here.

There are vast differences between Hogg and Sandmann. Hogg threw his hat in the ring. Sandmann was dragged into it. Hogg is a political activist. Sandmann is not. Hogg goes out to deliberately get media attention for his cause. Sandmann only did a couple of interviews to explain his legal actions against the media. Had not the Indian approached Sandmann and somebody recorded it, nobody would have known his name. Hogg, not so much.

There are no vast differences. Other than partisan ones.

Yes there are

Hogg is an attention whore who exploited a tragedy

Sandmann just got singled out and smeared

Your bias is showing.

 

[Coyote]

Parkland survivor David Hogg sees double standard in defense of Covington Catholic students

 

[Dragonlady]

I see two huge problems here, and I don’t lay all at the feet of the media but at feet of our society that drives and consumes and spreads uncritically the fodder generated by the thousands of outlets that call themselves media and journalists and talking heads.

Sandmann. A 16 yr old kid attending an event. He may or may not have behaved rudely, depends on your point of video view, but it doesn’t matter. What he may or may not have done is hardly newsworthy. He is a typical teen, maybe a little bored, doing nothing wrong. Teen kid being a teen kid. Not news by any means. But some one takes a video, opinionated to their particular slant, and makes a nonevent into something of a crisis for him and his family who had no clue he had even done something wrong. Death threats? Media shredding of a teens charecter and motivation, and worse doubling down on it when debate issues? Unreal!

And if you think Hogg is any different shame on you. He is another kid, who survived a horrendous experience no kid should have, and chose to not just let it be swept under the rug. Whether you agree with his view point or not, shouldn’t matter. He was accused of being a crisis actor, of not even having been there, his personal life was intruded on when Laura Ingraham made fun of him on her show, his family received death threats.

These are the ADULTS behaving in this shameful manner towards KIDS! ADULTS! WTF is wrong with them? And then you (a general sweeping “you”) say itis ok to attack some kids but not others? No! This is not cool. We have lost something here.

There are vast differences between Hogg and Sandmann. Hogg threw his hat in the ring. Sandmann was dragged into it. Hogg is a political activist. Sandmann is not. Hogg goes out to deliberately get media attention for his cause. Sandmann only did a couple of interviews to explain his legal actions against the media. Had not the Indian approached Sandmann and somebody recorded it, nobody would have known his name. Hogg, not so much.

There are no vast differences. Other than partisan ones.

So I just pointed out several differences and you act like you didn't read one of them.

This is why trying to explain things to people on the left are like

Sandmann threw his hat into the ring just as directly as Hogg did. Had Sandmann gone home and done nothing more, we would not still be discussing this matter. Instead, he went on TV and gave interviews about it all and said it was all a misundertanding. He was trying to defuse the situation.

His parents hired an expensive lawyer, and started sending threatening letters, which garnered more publicity and attention, and then Sandmann's parents filed lawsuits for hundreds of millions of dollars - suits that are now being dismissed. Now his father is claiming that he is standing up for himself and the nation. Sandmann says he wishes he'd walked away. How is this being "dragged into the spotlight"?

I strongly suggest you read the actual Court Order, which sets out the legal reasoning behind the decision. There is a 7 page chart at the end of the judgement which lists the various statements that Sandmann's filings claimed slandered and defamed him. I found it interesting reading. Sandmann's case was actually much weaker than I initially thought. Sandman should be grateful he wasn't ordered to pay WAPO's legal fees.

https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-co...st-Opinion-and-Order-Dismissing-Complaint.pdf

The school got it right in the first place - disciplining the kids for inappropriate behaviour. The chaperones should be fired, if they were teachers. But then the parents went into rich parent helicopter mode, and went after the school and reminded them whose money pays their salaries and the school decided to "investigate", instead of disciplining the kids, they hired an "investigator" who cleared the school, the kids of any kind of bad behaviour or wrongdoing, because that's what happens when rich kids screw up. Their parents clean it up and pretend they're the injured party.

The people with the WORST kids, are the ones who always claim their little darling would never do such a thing.

 

[Coyote]

I see two huge problems here, and I don’t lay all at the feet of the media but at feet of our society that drives and consumes and spreads uncritically the fodder generated by the thousands of outlets that call themselves media and journalists and talking heads.

Sandmann. A 16 yr old kid attending an event. He may or may not have behaved rudely, depends on your point of video view, but it doesn’t matter. What he may or may not have done is hardly newsworthy. He is a typical teen, maybe a little bored, doing nothing wrong. Teen kid being a teen kid. Not news by any means. But some one takes a video, opinionated to their particular slant, and makes a nonevent into something of a crisis for him and his family who had no clue he had even done something wrong. Death threats? Media shredding of a teens charecter and motivation, and worse doubling down on it when debate issues? Unreal!

And if you think Hogg is any different shame on you. He is another kid, who survived a horrendous experience no kid should have, and chose to not just let it be swept under the rug. Whether you agree with his view point or not, shouldn’t matter. He was accused of being a crisis actor, of not even having been there, his personal life was intruded on when Laura Ingraham made fun of him on her show, his family received death threats.

These are the ADULTS behaving in this shameful manner towards KIDS! ADULTS! WTF is wrong with them? And then you (a general sweeping “you”) say itis ok to attack some kids but not others? No! This is not cool. We have lost something here.

There are vast differences between Hogg and Sandmann. Hogg threw his hat in the ring. Sandmann was dragged into it. Hogg is a political activist. Sandmann is not. Hogg goes out to deliberately get media attention for his cause. Sandmann only did a couple of interviews to explain his legal actions against the media. Had not the Indian approached Sandmann and somebody recorded it, nobody would have known his name. Hogg, not so much.

There are no vast differences. Other than partisan ones.

So I just pointed out several differences and you act like you didn't read one of them.

This is why trying to explain things to people on the left are like

Sandmann threw his hat into the ring just as directly as Hogg did. Had Sandmann gone home and done nothing more, we would not still be discussing this matter. Instead, he went on TV and gave interviews about it all and said it was all a misundertanding. He was trying to defuse the situation.

His parents hired an expensive lawyer, and started sending threatening letters, which garnered more publicity and attention, and then Sandmann's parents filed lawsuits for hundreds of millions of dollars - suits that are now being dismissed. Now his father is claiming that he is standing up for himself and the nation. Sandmann says he wishes he'd walked away. How is this being "dragged into the spotlight"?

I strongly suggest you read the actual Court Order, which sets out the legal reasoning behind the decision. There is a 7 page chart at the end of the judgement which lists the various statements that Sandmann's filings claimed slandered and defamed him. I found it interesting reading. Sandmann's case was actually much weaker than I initially thought. Sandman should be grateful he wasn't ordered to pay WAPO's legal fees.

https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-co...st-Opinion-and-Order-Dismissing-Complaint.pdf

The school got it right in the first place - disciplining the kids for inappropriate behaviour. The chaperones should be fired, if they were teachers. But then the parents went into rich parent helicopter mode, and went after the school and reminded them whose money pays their salaries and the school decided to "investigate", instead of disciplining the kids, they hired an "investigator" who cleared the school, the kids of any kind of bad behaviour or wrongdoing, because that's what happens when rich kids screw up. Their parents clean it up and pretend they're the injured party.

The people with the WORST kids, are the ones who always claim their little darling would never do such a thing.

The problem isn’t the kid, it’s the parents.

 

[Dragonlady]

I see two huge problems here, and I don’t lay all at the feet of the media but at feet of our society that drives and consumes and spreads uncritically the fodder generated by the thousands of outlets that call themselves media and journalists and talking heads.

Sandmann. A 16 yr old kid attending an event. He may or may not have behaved rudely, depends on your point of video view, but it doesn’t matter. What he may or may not have done is hardly newsworthy. He is a typical teen, maybe a little bored, doing nothing wrong. Teen kid being a teen kid. Not news by any means. But some one takes a video, opinionated to their particular slant, and makes a nonevent into something of a crisis for him and his family who had no clue he had even done something wrong. Death threats? Media shredding of a teens charecter and motivation, and worse doubling down on it when debate issues? Unreal!

And if you think Hogg is any different shame on you. He is another kid, who survived a horrendous experience no kid should have, and chose to not just let it be swept under the rug. Whether you agree with his view point or not, shouldn’t matter. He was accused of being a crisis actor, of not even having been there, his personal life was intruded on when Laura Ingraham made fun of him on her show, his family received death threats.

These are the ADULTS behaving in this shameful manner towards KIDS! ADULTS! WTF is wrong with them? And then you (a general sweeping “you”) say itis ok to attack some kids but not others? No! This is not cool. We have lost something here.

There are vast differences between Hogg and Sandmann. Hogg threw his hat in the ring. Sandmann was dragged into it. Hogg is a political activist. Sandmann is not. Hogg goes out to deliberately get media attention for his cause. Sandmann only did a couple of interviews to explain his legal actions against the media. Had not the Indian approached Sandmann and somebody recorded it, nobody would have known his name. Hogg, not so much.

There are no vast differences. Other than partisan ones.

So I just pointed out several differences and you act like you didn't read one of them.

This is why trying to explain things to people on the left are like

Sandmann threw his hat into the ring just as directly as Hogg did. Had Sandmann gone home and done nothing more, we would not still be discussing this matter. Instead, he went on TV and gave interviews about it all and said it was all a misundertanding. He was trying to defuse the situation.

His parents hired an expensive lawyer, and started sending threatening letters, which garnered more publicity and attention, and then Sandmann's parents filed lawsuits for hundreds of millions of dollars - suits that are now being dismissed. Now his father is claiming that he is standing up for himself and the nation. Sandmann says he wishes he'd walked away. How is this being "dragged into the spotlight"?

I strongly suggest you read the actual Court Order, which sets out the legal reasoning behind the decision. There is a 7 page chart at the end of the judgement which lists the various statements that Sandmann's filings claimed slandered and defamed him. I found it interesting reading. Sandmann's case was actually much weaker than I initially thought. Sandman should be grateful he wasn't ordered to pay WAPO's legal fees.

https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-co...st-Opinion-and-Order-Dismissing-Complaint.pdf

The school got it right in the first place - disciplining the kids for inappropriate behaviour. The chaperones should be fired, if they were teachers. But then the parents went into rich parent helicopter mode, and went after the school and reminded them whose money pays their salaries and the school decided to "investigate", instead of disciplining the kids, they hired an "investigator" who cleared the school, the kids of any kind of bad behaviour or wrongdoing, because that's what happens when rich kids screw up. Their parents clean it up and pretend they're the injured party.

The people with the WORST kids, are the ones who always claim their little darling would never do such a thing.

The problem isn’t the kid, it’s the parents.

The idea of sending a bunch of tweenage boys to an anti-abortion march is just off to begin with. It certainly doesn't strike me as something the boys decided to do on their own. It's highly unlikely that they give a rat's ass about abortion rights, and just wanted to go to Washington and hang out.

Sandmann didn't file suit, his parents did. The father is trying to make this into something it's not, and the judge's order was really clear. Most of the reasons for dismissal was that the comments Sandmann claimed defamed him were comments about the entire group, and one person in a group cannot claim defamation unless the comments specifically identify him by name or description.

The legal nerd website which posted the Order, had some commentary on the judgement and one of the responses to this piece said that the Anti-Abortion movement felt their movement got a black eye out of this and the real reason Sandmann is being pushed into this is to protect the image of the anti-abortionist movement.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I see two huge problems here, and I don’t lay all at the feet of the media but at feet of our society that drives and consumes and spreads uncritically the fodder generated by the thousands of outlets that call themselves media and journalists and talking heads.

Sandmann. A 16 yr old kid attending an event. He may or may not have behaved rudely, depends on your point of video view, but it doesn’t matter. What he may or may not have done is hardly newsworthy. He is a typical teen, maybe a little bored, doing nothing wrong. Teen kid being a teen kid. Not news by any means. But some one takes a video, opinionated to their particular slant, and makes a nonevent into something of a crisis for him and his family who had no clue he had even done something wrong. Death threats? Media shredding of a teens charecter and motivation, and worse doubling down on it when debate issues? Unreal!

And if you think Hogg is any different shame on you. He is another kid, who survived a horrendous experience no kid should have, and chose to not just let it be swept under the rug. Whether you agree with his view point or not, shouldn’t matter. He was accused of being a crisis actor, of not even having been there, his personal life was intruded on when Laura Ingraham made fun of him on her show, his family received death threats.

These are the ADULTS behaving in this shameful manner towards KIDS! ADULTS! WTF is wrong with them? And then you (a general sweeping “you”) say itis ok to attack some kids but not others? No! This is not cool. We have lost something here.

There are vast differences between Hogg and Sandmann. Hogg threw his hat in the ring. Sandmann was dragged into it. Hogg is a political activist. Sandmann is not. Hogg goes out to deliberately get media attention for his cause. Sandmann only did a couple of interviews to explain his legal actions against the media. Had not the Indian approached Sandmann and somebody recorded it, nobody would have known his name. Hogg, not so much.

There are no vast differences. Other than partisan ones.

Yes there are

Hogg is an attention whore who exploited a tragedy

Sandmann just got singled out and smeared

Your bias is showing.

No it is not bias it the objective difference between the two

 

[Soupnazi630]

There are vast differences between Hogg and Sandmann. Hogg threw his hat in the ring. Sandmann was dragged into it. Hogg is a political activist. Sandmann is not. Hogg goes out to deliberately get media attention for his cause. Sandmann only did a couple of interviews to explain his legal actions against the media. Had not the Indian approached Sandmann and somebody recorded it, nobody would have known his name. Hogg, not so much.

There are no vast differences. Other than partisan ones.

So I just pointed out several differences and you act like you didn't read one of them.

This is why trying to explain things to people on the left are like

Sandmann threw his hat into the ring just as directly as Hogg did. Had Sandmann gone home and done nothing more, we would not still be discussing this matter. Instead, he went on TV and gave interviews about it all and said it was all a misundertanding. He was trying to defuse the situation.

His parents hired an expensive lawyer, and started sending threatening letters, which garnered more publicity and attention, and then Sandmann's parents filed lawsuits for hundreds of millions of dollars - suits that are now being dismissed. Now his father is claiming that he is standing up for himself and the nation. Sandmann says he wishes he'd walked away. How is this being "dragged into the spotlight"?

I strongly suggest you read the actual Court Order, which sets out the legal reasoning behind the decision. There is a 7 page chart at the end of the judgement which lists the various statements that Sandmann's filings claimed slandered and defamed him. I found it interesting reading. Sandmann's case was actually much weaker than I initially thought. Sandman should be grateful he wasn't ordered to pay WAPO's legal fees.

https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-co...st-Opinion-and-Order-Dismissing-Complaint.pdf

The school got it right in the first place - disciplining the kids for inappropriate behaviour. The chaperones should be fired, if they were teachers. But then the parents went into rich parent helicopter mode, and went after the school and reminded them whose money pays their salaries and the school decided to "investigate", instead of disciplining the kids, they hired an "investigator" who cleared the school, the kids of any kind of bad behaviour or wrongdoing, because that's what happens when rich kids screw up. Their parents clean it up and pretend they're the injured party.

The people with the WORST kids, are the ones who always claim their little darling would never do such a thing.

The problem isn’t the kid, it’s the parents.

The idea of sending a bunch of tweenage boys to an anti-abortion march is just off to begin with. It certainly doesn't strike me as something the boys decided to do on their own. It's highly unlikely that they give a rat's ass about abortion rights, and just wanted to go to Washington and hang out.

Sandmann didn't file suit, his parents did. The father is trying to make this into something it's not, and the judge's order was really clear. Most of the reasons for dismissal was that the comments Sandmann claimed defamed him were comments about the entire group, and one person in a group cannot claim defamation unless the comments specifically identify him by name or description.

The legal nerd website which posted the Order, had some commentary on the judgement and one of the responses to this piece said that the Anti-Abortion movement felt their movement got a black eye out of this and the real reason Sandmann is being pushed into this is to protect the image of the anti-abortionist movement.

So teenagers cannot form opinions unless you approve of what they think

It is perfectly reasonable for these kids to have opinions and express them in a reasonable fashion

The pro life crowd got no black eye the kids who were harassed and smeared got a black eye

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I see two huge problems here, and I don’t lay all at the feet of the media but at feet of our society that drives and consumes and spreads uncritically the fodder generated by the thousands of outlets that call themselves media and journalists and talking heads.

Sandmann. A 16 yr old kid attending an event. He may or may not have behaved rudely, depends on your point of video view, but it doesn’t matter. What he may or may not have done is hardly newsworthy. He is a typical teen, maybe a little bored, doing nothing wrong. Teen kid being a teen kid. Not news by any means. But some one takes a video, opinionated to their particular slant, and makes a nonevent into something of a crisis for him and his family who had no clue he had even done something wrong. Death threats? Media shredding of a teens charecter and motivation, and worse doubling down on it when debate issues? Unreal!

And if you think Hogg is any different shame on you. He is another kid, who survived a horrendous experience no kid should have, and chose to not just let it be swept under the rug. Whether you agree with his view point or not, shouldn’t matter. He was accused of being a crisis actor, of not even having been there, his personal life was intruded on when Laura Ingraham made fun of him on her show, his family received death threats.

These are the ADULTS behaving in this shameful manner towards KIDS! ADULTS! WTF is wrong with them? And then you (a general sweeping “you”) say itis ok to attack some kids but not others? No! This is not cool. We have lost something here.

There are vast differences between Hogg and Sandmann. Hogg threw his hat in the ring. Sandmann was dragged into it. Hogg is a political activist. Sandmann is not. Hogg goes out to deliberately get media attention for his cause. Sandmann only did a couple of interviews to explain his legal actions against the media. Had not the Indian approached Sandmann and somebody recorded it, nobody would have known his name. Hogg, not so much.

There are no vast differences. Other than partisan ones.

So I just pointed out several differences and you act like you didn't read one of them.

This is why trying to explain things to people on the left are like

Sandmann threw his hat into the ring just as directly as Hogg did. Had Sandmann gone home and done nothing more, we would not still be discussing this matter. Instead, he went on TV and gave interviews about it all and said it was all a misundertanding. He was trying to defuse the situation.

His parents hired an expensive lawyer, and started sending threatening letters, which garnered more publicity and attention, and then Sandmann's parents filed lawsuits for hundreds of millions of dollars - suits that are now being dismissed. Now his father is claiming that he is standing up for himself and the nation. Sandmann says he wishes he'd walked away. How is this being "dragged into the spotlight"?

I strongly suggest you read the actual Court Order, which sets out the legal reasoning behind the decision. There is a 7 page chart at the end of the judgement which lists the various statements that Sandmann's filings claimed slandered and defamed him. I found it interesting reading. Sandmann's case was actually much weaker than I initially thought. Sandman should be grateful he wasn't ordered to pay WAPO's legal fees.

https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-co...st-Opinion-and-Order-Dismissing-Complaint.pdf

The school got it right in the first place - disciplining the kids for inappropriate behaviour. The chaperones should be fired, if they were teachers. But then the parents went into rich parent helicopter mode, and went after the school and reminded them whose money pays their salaries and the school decided to "investigate", instead of disciplining the kids, they hired an "investigator" who cleared the school, the kids of any kind of bad behaviour or wrongdoing, because that's what happens when rich kids screw up. Their parents clean it up and pretend they're the injured party.

The people with the WORST kids, are the ones who always claim their little darling would never do such a thing.

Correct. Kids should never wait for a bus and mind their own business. You never know when some crazy black people or Indians may approach the group to harass you. WTF were they thinking?

I will agree that the parents who allowed their kids to go to this are not the smartest people in the world either. I don't really care about the judgment, and what reason they went forward with the suit. The discussion here is if what Sandmann did was wrong or inappropriate. I say he showed incredible restraint and respect for somebody his age.

 

[Dragonlady]

I see two huge problems here, and I don’t lay all at the feet of the media but at feet of our society that drives and consumes and spreads uncritically the fodder generated by the thousands of outlets that call themselves media and journalists and talking heads.

Sandmann. A 16 yr old kid attending an event. He may or may not have behaved rudely, depends on your point of video view, but it doesn’t matter. What he may or may not have done is hardly newsworthy. He is a typical teen, maybe a little bored, doing nothing wrong. Teen kid being a teen kid. Not news by any means. But some one takes a video, opinionated to their particular slant, and makes a nonevent into something of a crisis for him and his family who had no clue he had even done something wrong. Death threats? Media shredding of a teens charecter and motivation, and worse doubling down on it when debate issues? Unreal!

And if you think Hogg is any different shame on you. He is another kid, who survived a horrendous experience no kid should have, and chose to not just let it be swept under the rug. Whether you agree with his view point or not, shouldn’t matter. He was accused of being a crisis actor, of not even having been there, his personal life was intruded on when Laura Ingraham made fun of him on her show, his family received death threats.

These are the ADULTS behaving in this shameful manner towards KIDS! ADULTS! WTF is wrong with them? And then you (a general sweeping “you”) say itis ok to attack some kids but not others? No! This is not cool. We have lost something here.

There are vast differences between Hogg and Sandmann. Hogg threw his hat in the ring. Sandmann was dragged into it. Hogg is a political activist. Sandmann is not. Hogg goes out to deliberately get media attention for his cause. Sandmann only did a couple of interviews to explain his legal actions against the media. Had not the Indian approached Sandmann and somebody recorded it, nobody would have known his name. Hogg, not so much.

There are no vast differences. Other than partisan ones.

So I just pointed out several differences and you act like you didn't read one of them.

This is why trying to explain things to people on the left are like

Sandmann threw his hat into the ring just as directly as Hogg did. Had Sandmann gone home and done nothing more, we would not still be discussing this matter. Instead, he went on TV and gave interviews about it all and said it was all a misundertanding. He was trying to defuse the situation.

His parents hired an expensive lawyer, and started sending threatening letters, which garnered more publicity and attention, and then Sandmann's parents filed lawsuits for hundreds of millions of dollars - suits that are now being dismissed. Now his father is claiming that he is standing up for himself and the nation. Sandmann says he wishes he'd walked away. How is this being "dragged into the spotlight"?

I strongly suggest you read the actual Court Order, which sets out the legal reasoning behind the decision. There is a 7 page chart at the end of the judgement which lists the various statements that Sandmann's filings claimed slandered and defamed him. I found it interesting reading. Sandmann's case was actually much weaker than I initially thought. Sandman should be grateful he wasn't ordered to pay WAPO's legal fees.

https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-co...st-Opinion-and-Order-Dismissing-Complaint.pdf

The school got it right in the first place - disciplining the kids for inappropriate behaviour. The chaperones should be fired, if they were teachers. But then the parents went into rich parent helicopter mode, and went after the school and reminded them whose money pays their salaries and the school decided to "investigate", instead of disciplining the kids, they hired an "investigator" who cleared the school, the kids of any kind of bad behaviour or wrongdoing, because that's what happens when rich kids screw up. Their parents clean it up and pretend they're the injured party.

The people with the WORST kids, are the ones who always claim their little darling would never do such a thing.

Correct. Kids should never wait for a bus and mind their own business. You never know when some crazy black people or Indians may approach the group to harass you. WTF were they thinking?

I will agree that the parents who allowed their kids to go to this are not the smartest people in the world either. I don't really care about the judgment, and what reason they went forward with the suit. The discussion here is if what Sandmann did was wrong or inappropriate. I say he showed incredible restraint and respect for somebody his age.

It’s not Sandmann’s actions I take issue with. It’s the chaperones who allowed and even encouraged the boys to respond to the taunts in kind, escalating the situation all around. They should have moved the kids to a safer location.

Last night I read the entire 30 page Order. The reasons for dismissal were overwhelming to the point that I wondered what competent lawyer would file a suit that so clearly had no hope of success. The legal nerd site that posted it said the WAPO suit was the strongest case of the three the family filed.

The famous libel lawyer who filed should have known that only statements naming or identifying Sandmann could be claimed as defamatory. That statements about the entire group could not be claimed by one member of the group, as defamatory. It’s written right in the law plain as day.

If this ruling is appealed, this suit could be dismissed “with prejudice” which would make Sandmann responsible for WAPO’s legal fees.

There are no vast differences. Other than partisan ones.

So I just pointed out several differences and you act like you didn't read one of them.

This is why trying to explain things to people on the left are like

Sandmann threw his hat into the ring just as directly as Hogg did. Had Sandmann gone home and done nothing more, we would not still be discussing this matter. Instead, he went on TV and gave interviews about it all and said it was all a misundertanding. He was trying to defuse the situation.

His parents hired an expensive lawyer, and started sending threatening letters, which garnered more publicity and attention, and then Sandmann's parents filed lawsuits for hundreds of millions of dollars - suits that are now being dismissed. Now his father is claiming that he is standing up for himself and the nation. Sandmann says he wishes he'd walked away. How is this being "dragged into the spotlight"?

I strongly suggest you read the actual Court Order, which sets out the legal reasoning behind the decision. There is a 7 page chart at the end of the judgement which lists the various statements that Sandmann's filings claimed slandered and defamed him. I found it interesting reading. Sandmann's case was actually much weaker than I initially thought. Sandman should be grateful he wasn't ordered to pay WAPO's legal fees.

https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-co...st-Opinion-and-Order-Dismissing-Complaint.pdf

The school got it right in the first place - disciplining the kids for inappropriate behaviour. The chaperones should be fired, if they were teachers. But then the parents went into rich parent helicopter mode, and went after the school and reminded them whose money pays their salaries and the school decided to "investigate", instead of disciplining the kids, they hired an "investigator" who cleared the school, the kids of any kind of bad behaviour or wrongdoing, because that's what happens when rich kids screw up. Their parents clean it up and pretend they're the injured party.

The people with the WORST kids, are the ones who always claim their little darling would never do such a thing.

The problem isn’t the kid, it’s the parents.

The idea of sending a bunch of tweenage boys to an anti-abortion march is just off to begin with. It certainly doesn't strike me as something the boys decided to do on their own. It's highly unlikely that they give a rat's ass about abortion rights, and just wanted to go to Washington and hang out.

Sandmann didn't file suit, his parents did. The father is trying to make this into something it's not, and the judge's order was really clear. Most of the reasons for dismissal was that the comments Sandmann claimed defamed him were comments about the entire group, and one person in a group cannot claim defamation unless the comments specifically identify him by name or description.

The legal nerd website which posted the Order, had some commentary on the judgement and one of the responses to this piece said that the Anti-Abortion movement felt their movement got a black eye out of this and the real reason Sandmann is being pushed into this is to protect the image of the anti-abortionist movement.

So teenagers cannot form opinions unless you approve of what they think

It is perfectly reasonable for these kids to have opinions and express them in a reasonable fashion

The pro life crowd got no black eye the kids who were harassed and smeared got a black eye

Teenagers can form all the opinions they want but I have grandsons the age of these kids, Including one who is very intellectual, opinionated, and strong minded, and abortion rights are not even on his radar.

It’s difficult to imagine one of these children knowing or caring enough about the issue to want to travel to Washington and protest about it, much less 30 or 40 of them.

 

[bripat9643]

I see two huge problems here, and I don’t lay all at the feet of the media but at feet of our society that drives and consumes and spreads uncritically the fodder generated by the thousands of outlets that call themselves media and journalists and talking heads.

Sandmann. A 16 yr old kid attending an event. He may or may not have behaved rudely, depends on your point of video view, but it doesn’t matter. What he may or may not have done is hardly newsworthy. He is a typical teen, maybe a little bored, doing nothing wrong. Teen kid being a teen kid. Not news by any means. But some one takes a video, opinionated to their particular slant, and makes a nonevent into something of a crisis for him and his family who had no clue he had even done something wrong. Death threats? Media shredding of a teens charecter and motivation, and worse doubling down on it when debate issues? Unreal!

And if you think Hogg is any different shame on you. He is another kid, who survived a horrendous experience no kid should have, and chose to not just let it be swept under the rug. Whether you agree with his view point or not, shouldn’t matter. He was accused of being a crisis actor, of not even having been there, his personal life was intruded on when Laura Ingraham made fun of him on her show, his family received death threats.

These are the ADULTS behaving in this shameful manner towards KIDS! ADULTS! WTF is wrong with them? And then you (a general sweeping “you”) say itis ok to attack some kids but not others? No! This is not cool. We have lost something here.

There are vast differences between Hogg and Sandmann. Hogg threw his hat in the ring. Sandmann was dragged into it. Hogg is a political activist. Sandmann is not. Hogg goes out to deliberately get media attention for his cause. Sandmann only did a couple of interviews to explain his legal actions against the media. Had not the Indian approached Sandmann and somebody recorded it, nobody would have known his name. Hogg, not so much.

There are no vast differences. Other than partisan ones.

So I just pointed out several differences and you act like you didn't read one of them.

This is why trying to explain things to people on the left are like

Sandmann threw his hat into the ring just as directly as Hogg did. Had Sandmann gone home and done nothing more, we would not still be discussing this matter. Instead, he went on TV and gave interviews about it all and said it was all a misundertanding. He was trying to defuse the situation.

His parents hired an expensive lawyer, and started sending threatening letters, which garnered more publicity and attention, and then Sandmann's parents filed lawsuits for hundreds of millions of dollars - suits that are now being dismissed. Now his father is claiming that he is standing up for himself and the nation. Sandmann says he wishes he'd walked away. How is this being "dragged into the spotlight"?

I strongly suggest you read the actual Court Order, which sets out the legal reasoning behind the decision. There is a 7 page chart at the end of the judgement which lists the various statements that Sandmann's filings claimed slandered and defamed him. I found it interesting reading. Sandmann's case was actually much weaker than I initially thought. Sandman should be grateful he wasn't ordered to pay WAPO's legal fees.

https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-co...st-Opinion-and-Order-Dismissing-Complaint.pdf

The school got it right in the first place - disciplining the kids for inappropriate behaviour. The chaperones should be fired, if they were teachers. But then the parents went into rich parent helicopter mode, and went after the school and reminded them whose money pays their salaries and the school decided to "investigate", instead of disciplining the kids, they hired an "investigator" who cleared the school, the kids of any kind of bad behaviour or wrongdoing, because that's what happens when rich kids screw up. Their parents clean it up and pretend they're the injured party.

The people with the WORST kids, are the ones who always claim their little darling would never do such a thing.

Wrong. Sandman didn't do anything aside from stand where he was standing from the beginning. Yeah, he could have done nothing and let dozens of billion dollar media outlets slander him for two or three weeks, but why should he have done that? What you're whining about is the fact that he didn't allow himself to be used as a punching bag.

You're a sleazy piece of work.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It’s not Sandmann’s actions I take issue with. It’s the chaperones who allowed and even encouraged the boys to respond to the taunts in kind, escalating the situation all around. They should have moved the kids to a safer location.

Last night I read the entire 30 page Order. The reasons for dismissal were overwhelming to the point that I wondered what competent lawyer would file a suit that so clearly had no hope of success. The legal nerd site that posted it said the WAPO suit was the strongest case of the three the family filed.

The famous libel lawyer who filed should have known that only statements naming or identifying Sandmann could be claimed as defamatory. That statements about the entire group could not be claimed by one member of the group, as defamatory. It’s written right in the law plain as day.

If this ruling is appealed, this suit could be dismissed “with prejudice” which would make Sandmann responsible for WAPO’s legal fees.

You say the chaperones are at fault here because they were the adults. So what is Phillips, an old looking teenager?

He's an elderly man that should have known how to act like an adult more than anybody there. Clearly he's in the wrong, not Sandmann. And do you think if they moved, the bus driver would have rode around looking for them? They were where they were supposed to be at to get their SCHEDULED pickup.

Perhaps if Sandman's next case gets a hearing from a less partial judge, you may see a win in his favor, and I hope they get it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Since when does the First Amendment make it legal to libel someone?

You mean like saying Ted Cruz's dad helped kill Kennedy?

You mean like spending years falsely claiming the President is not qualified to be President because he was born in Kenya?


Like that?

More like when they report the President said all white supremacists are good people.

When you lie about what was reported, why can't the media sue YOU for slander and libel. Or you twist what was reported into something completely different, and then say "Well that's what they meant".

Not one media outlet claimed that was what Trump said. What Trump said was that in Charlottesville, there were "good people on both sides".

Yes, that's exactly what he said, but much of the MSM didn't report it that way. Need links, I'll be happy to find them for ya.

Provide them.

Trump's Charlottesville comments twisted by Joe Biden and the media

As RealClearPolitics’ Steve Cortes argued, “Despite the clear evidence of Trump’s statements regarding Charlottesville, major media figures insist on spreading the calumny that Trump called neo-Nazis ‘fine people.’”

But here’s the thing: He did.

Trump’s new defense of his Charlottesville comments is incredibly false

Guy Who Dubbed Neo-Nazis “Very Fine People” Suddenly Concerned About Anti-Semitism

Trump, Who Said Neo-Nazis Are “Very Fine People,” Has a New Talking Point: “Democrats Hate Jewish People”

Trump Can’t Escape Having Called Nazis “Very Fine People” by SOTU Spectacle

 

[ColonelAngus]

CNN settled because they are lying scum.

CNN confirms a settlement has been reached with Nick Sandmann

 

[K9Buck]

CNN settled because they are lying scum.

CNN confirms a settlement has been reached with Nick Sandmann

I imagine Corrupt News Network is paying Nick's college tuition. Lol.

 

[Polishprince]

CNN settled because they are lying scum.

CNN confirms a settlement has been reached with Nick Sandmann

Good.

This will pressure the other Fake News purveyors to settle as well. Get this episode behind us, and hope that the Fraudulent Media has learned their lesson

 

[K9Buck]

You mean like saying Ted Cruz's dad helped kill Kennedy?

You mean like spending years falsely claiming the President is not qualified to be President because he was born in Kenya?


Like that?

More like when they report the President said all white supremacists are good people.

When you lie about what was reported, why can't the media sue YOU for slander and libel. Or you twist what was reported into something completely different, and then say "Well that's what they meant".

Not one media outlet claimed that was what Trump said. What Trump said was that in Charlottesville, there were "good people on both sides".

Yes, that's exactly what he said, but much of the MSM didn't report it that way. Need links, I'll be happy to find them for ya.

Provide them.

Trump's Charlottesville comments twisted by Joe Biden and the media

As RealClearPolitics’ Steve Cortes argued, “Despite the clear evidence of Trump’s statements regarding Charlottesville, major media figures insist on spreading the calumny that Trump called neo-Nazis ‘fine people.’”

But here’s the thing: He did.

Trump’s new defense of his Charlottesville comments is incredibly false

Guy Who Dubbed Neo-Nazis “Very Fine People” Suddenly Concerned About Anti-Semitism

Trump, Who Said Neo-Nazis Are “Very Fine People,” Has a New Talking Point: “Democrats Hate Jewish People”

Trump Can’t Escape Having Called Nazis “Very Fine People” by SOTU Spectacle

Lol, perfect timing. Baghdad Coyote asked for details, you provided them and she ran away. That's Bob's go-to escape when inconvenient facts get in the way.

 

[Polishprince]

CNN settled because they are lying scum.

CNN confirms a settlement has been reached with Nick Sandmann

I imagine Corrupt News Network is paying Nick's college tuition. Lol.

If Nick wants to go to college, sure.

But the young man is a multimillionaire without college, besides Harvard and other schools have already said they aren't taking him.

 

[ColonelAngus]

CNN settled because they are lying scum.

CNN confirms a settlement has been reached with Nick Sandmann

Good.

This will pressure the other Fake News purveyors to settle as well. Get this episode behind us, and hope that the Fraudulent Media has learned their lesson

Not a chance in hell.

They are already doing it by lying about the fake mourners at the funeral of Soleimani.